Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will move an amendment on a very short point and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. The schedule to the Bill sets out the procedure for giving a work notice and the Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to show

“how work notices are to operate”.

Subsection (7), for example, requires consultation with the unions. However, the critical point which emerged in Committee was the nature of the obligation on an employer to give a notice. Did the employer have to issue a notice? Was it entirely voluntary or was there something subtle in the middle? It all turns on the meaning of “may”—a good point for a lawyer possibly to take.

It is accepted that “may” does not mean “must”, although sometimes courts interpret “may” as meaning “must”. The question arose as to whether it meant that an employer was free to decide voluntarily what to do, given the impact it might have on his relations with the staff, or whether the position was more complex. I drafted Amendment 3 to make it clear that it was to be entirely voluntarily and sent it to His Majesty’s Government. Their response on “may” was clear. The Government’s letter said:

“The Bill does not place any direct obligation on an employer to issue a work notice. Rather, it gives employers a statutory discretion whether … to do so. This is right given that they are closer to the day-to-day operation of their services”.


It went on to explain the complexity, saying that

“where an employer is a public authority, they will need to consider their overarching public law duties. Employers will also need to consider if they have any contractual or other legal obligations that they need to comply with”.

There is no point in debating whether His Majesty’s Government are right in the interpretation of “may”; that must be for the courts to decide. But let us assume they are. There are a number of consequences. First, there is a process to be gone through by the employer—although it is not in the Bill, despite what the Explanatory Notes say. Secondly, if an employer has contractual obligations, it will have to examine what those are. If an employer is a public body, it would have to consider its public law duties, spelled out in legislation and government directions. As regards public law, it would no doubt be prudent to consult the relevant Government.

The employer would then have to weigh up the damage the notice might cause to staff relations and the provision of services in the future. There might be other considerations. It will be a difficult decision for employers in England and they might be pressurised, either by an injunction or a judicial review. We must emphasise that the courts are now likely to come into this.

In Wales and Scotland—assuming the Bill applies to them—there would be a further layer of uncertainty because they would be subject to Welsh and Scottish primary legislation and the views of their Governments. How could it be expected that public bodies in those two nations and devolved areas should be responsible for working out what their duties were?

I had hoped for one of two things: either the Government would accept my amendment—but it is plain they will not—or they would set out the considerations and put them into the statute. But they have not done that either.

I will therefore move this amendment, but I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House for two reasons. First, if His Majesty’s Government are right on the meaning of “may”, there really are contentious points of law for the courts in defining the employer’s obligations in the different contexts of hospitals, teachers and railways. This is most unfortunate. Secondly, the Bill should be clear and spell out the decision in the way the Explanatory Notes said it should be done but, as I said in Committee, this Bill is the epitome of legislation first, policy second—a total reversal of the proper policy. I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to which I have added my name. A benefit of the Committee stage in this House is that it allows us to identify concerns that may not have been apparent when a Bill was first introduced. It is through that process of analysing how legislation will work in practice, informed by the experiences that noble Lords bring to this place, that we can flush out those unintended consequences. On a good day, the House having flagged something that is a reasonable area of concern, the Government will provide us with clarifications that show that our fears are misplaced and that all will be well. On a really good day, a Minister will acknowledge that we have identified a genuine problem and set out a path to fix it. We have just had an example of that on the previous amendment.

I believe we have done our job and identified a real gap here between the Government’s rhetoric that employers will not be mandated to issue work notices and what may happen in practice, yet the Government have so far failed to provide either a clarification that our concerns are unfounded or an acknowledgement that we have identified a real issue that they intend to fix before the Bill becomes law. In this amendment we are presenting a way to demonstrate the kind of fix that we think is needed, not to undermine the Government’s intentions in respect of the legislation writ large, but rather to ensure that it works as they themselves have said they wish to happen.

My concern is quite specific. It is that employers will be advised that they expose themselves to significant legal risk if they do not issue work notices, even where they feel that they would be counterproductive to their efforts to negotiate with their employees. The circumstances under which they may feel this compulsion are not fantastical but all too apparent if we look at broader trends in litigation. We do not have to stretch our imagination too far to see somebody suing an NHS body that chose not to issue work orders, alleging that their treatment could have been delivered if it had; a student taking action against an educational institution on the basis that it did not order teaching staff to turn up during strike days; or businesses suffering disruption as a result of transport strikes going after train operators, claiming that more service could have been provided.

Some noble Lords may have sympathy with this approach and think, “Good; if employers feel compelled to issue work orders, the Bill is working”, but the Government have said repeatedly that the work order should be voluntary and that this is not what they intend. If they wish to make work orders compulsory, they should have the honesty to say that in the Bill. They would be de facto mandated because of the threat of litigation, and if the Government do not wish that to happen, they should agree to our amendment to make that clear to employers.

It seems far from ideal to leave this confused, with the extent of compulsion in practice decided on the basis of an assessment of the threat of legal action. I fear that the Government will argue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has already indicated, that this is an acceptable state of affairs and that they do not intend to change the legislation, but I hope that noble Lords will see the force of our arguments and will support Amendment 3.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, many people in this House will know that I have a firm belief that the best industrial relations are conducted by two parties that are trying to achieve objectives in common and are not clashing with each other. This amendment basically helps that to happen because it says that an employer will not be under an obligation to give a work notice if it does not want to. Surely the reason it would not want to is because it would worsen the industrial relations within the company or body concerned. That cannot possibly be a good objective to pursue.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Allan of Hallam]

15: The Schedule, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a statement outlining how the regulations are both necessary and proportionate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline why regulations made under this section are necessary and proportionate before making them.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have repeatedly said that we are talking about last-resort measures that they are reluctant to, and hope they will not have to, introduce. In this group, we will test the extent to which they genuinely see these as last-resort measures.

Collectively, the amendments could be described as seeking to introduce additional elements of friction, before the Government move to regulating for these minimum service levels. Friction can be a useful thing in the right places: if I wish to enter my own house, I would like that to be as frictionless as possible, but if the police would like to enter it to carry out a search, I would like there to be a reasonable level of friction, with them having to prove why they have the ability or need to do that, and to go before a court to have their need tested in front of others. So, here, we are trying to put those kinds of friction in place so that Ministers do not do what we fear: rush to regulate in the heat of action in the same way that they have rushed to bring this legislation before us in the first place.

Amendment 15 in my name uses two concepts that are familiar to those who work with human rights legislation—the notions of necessity and proportionality. I am not practised in public human rights law, so I will defer to the noble Broness, Lady Chakrabarti, who I am sure will have things to say on this group of amendments. However, I have had to make decisions on freedom of expression and surveillance questions on online platforms where these tests are useful and applied because they seek to balance different rights that we have. It has been generally accepted in our debates that we are talking about fundamental human rights here—the right of an individual to withdraw their labour. When considering whether the Government in the public interest can override that right, these necessity and proportionality tests are the right ones, just as they are in other contexts such as freedom of expression and surveillance.

I am sure that the Government in their response will refer to the human rights certification that is on the front page of every piece of legislation and say that it is an implicit commitment. Of course, no British Government could ever not apply tests of necessity and proportionality because they have signed off the legislation as compliant. However, there are significant advantages to making these tests explicit in this section of the Bill.

The amendment would force the Minister to consider the tests and to apply them explicitly before making regulations, and to publish their deliberations for scrutiny. In practice, this would mean that the Minister would have to ask the team that is putting together the case for the regulations to show its workings; this would have significant value if those workings were available to all of us. That is not least of defensive value for the Government, because at some point they will have to explain why they felt compelled to make the regulations and why they passed the threshold.

I look first at the necessity test. The Minister would need to be satisfied that all other avenues had been tried, which in this case largely means negotiated agreements to provide cover. The risk with the Bill as it stands is that Ministers will be satisfied with vague assurances. They will ask, “Did you ask for voluntary cover?” “Yes, Minister, we did.” “Did they agree?” “No, Minister, they didn’t.” “Okay, let’s move to a regulation.” The test may be no more than that and, indeed, in the letter that has just arrived from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which we are now considering, one senses an element of that with the Government’s argument around ambulance services: “We asked; we didn’t get one and we therefore now need this piece of legislation.” That is not good enough and, if this is truly a last resort power, we want the Minister to press for all avenues to have been explored including the potential offer of carrots to the workforce for agreeing to provide minimum services, as has happened in many other countries. We debated that at length on the first day of Committee. It is not simply a question of employers ordering their workforces to provide minimum service levels; in many institutions there is a negotiated agreement whereby something is offered to the workforce in return for providing minimum service levels. What we do not want is a necessity test that bypasses and ignores that option altogether. By putting that explicitly in the Bill, the Minister would have to be satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken and there was no other way in which to guarantee minimum service levels. That is the right necessity test when one is overriding somebody’s fundamental rights, as we have all agreed is happening in this case.

I turn now to the proportionality test. It is included to make sure the provision is done properly. There is a risk of a superficial version of this test—one which is effectively a cost-benefit analysis. We have seen this again in the context of the ambulance debate. The Government will argue that the benefits of having life-saving ambulance cover outweigh the cost of some workers not being able to strike. At that superficial level that sounds reasonable, but it is not a true proportionality test. To do that properly we need to dig into the next level, where we look at the likely actual impacts. There are two areas where the proportionality test might be more complex. First, if there is any likelihood that workers could end up being dismissed—as we have accepted is a potential outcome of this legislation—in this case the costs are dramatically different and that equation would change. Providing emergency cover versus dismissal of workers is a different test from emergency cover versus simply losing the right to strike.

Secondly, if the regulations did not result in more people showing up for work—for example, because people take other forms of industrial action, which they are entitled to do; there are all sorts for ways in which the climate could be poisoned to such an extent that one ends up with fewer people at work than one would have done absent the regulation—the benefits would not have been realised and the proportionality, the cost-benefit equation, changes. This amendment therefore proposes the kind of proportionality test that I hope the Minister would apply by rigorously looking at all the costs and benefits, and is then prepared to publish and defend that analysis rather than making simplistic assumptions. The amendment simply seeks to introduce that rigour with publication to make sure that it happens.

Other amendments in the group will add other forms of beneficial friction and I will leave it to their proponents to argue for them, but I hope that I have made a reasonable case for the Government to accept the additional clarity offered by Amendment 15. I beg to move.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I speak in support of every amendment in this group, even at the risk of offending the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. At first blush, her Amendment 17 enhances my noble friends’ amendment and does no mischief to it whatever because. by including the impact of the legislation on service users in the list of other groups of people affected, she has, perhaps inadvertently, introduced an element of proportionality into the assessment of the legislation. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. I perhaps would not have chosen his friction metaphor because it is the legislation itself that is introducing friction into what ought to be partnership industrial relations. This group may not be Henry VIII on stilts, but it is Henry VIII revisited. What every amendment in the group at least purports to do is to introduce an element of transparency into the process before the Secretary of State inflicts these regulations on the public or on Parliament.

I want to be clear, as I have been in the past, that the Bill is not desirable or necessary but if such minimum service level agreements were in a particular instance desirable, necessary and proportionate to comply with convention rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly pointed out, it would be for a number of reasons better for everyone—including Ministers—to do this by way of purpose-specific primary legislation. In a moment where it was truly necessary to impose these agreements because they could not be reasonably negotiated, it would be better for legal advocacy to do this by way of purpose-specific primary legislation. Why? Because it would be purpose-specific and because any court subsequently considering the necessity, proportionality and compliance with the law of the measure would give greater deference to the scrutiny and process undertaken in both Houses of Parliament in the context of a Bill rather than regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We will be responding in due course to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee. I entirely accept that this is a wide secondary-legislation-making power for the Government, but we think that it is appropriate in these circumstances.

With that, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry the Minister did not feel comfortable accepting the amendments in this group, but I think it has been a helpful debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, both talked about the potential for inserting friction into industrial relations. These Benches very much agree that that may be the effect of these regulations, so we think it is right to insert a certain level of friction into the legislative process to try to head off what may be a very poor outcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who I understand is now in Grand Committee, talked about the measures as being “not draconian”, which is an interesting framing. However, the fact is that they impact on people’s fundamental rights. Whether it impacts one person, a thousand people or a hundred thousand people, the general principle is that one should be much more careful with any legislation that affects fundamental rights. My amendment was trying to make sure that we had a framework which reflected that.

There is an old maxim that if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this Bill, the Government are granting themselves the power to create a hammer which will be offered to employers, but employers may prefer to meet their staff with other tools, such as cash or commitments to a negotiated settlement. In this debate, concerns have come out once more about what happens when the only tool you offer employers is the hammer and the potential knock-on effects of that.

It is right that we are testing whether the Government really will use those powers only in extremis, because “can’t” is often used when “won’t” is closer to the truth, until “won’t” becomes “will” and “can’t” is miraculously turned into “can”—as we have just seen with the recent move to settle the health disputes. That is another example of the Government saying that something is impossible—like minimum service levels are impossible—and then it becomes possible. I hope the Government will strengthen the Bill before Report to make sure that “can’t” really means “can’t” when it comes to negotiated minimum service levels. With that hope, and not yet entirely jaded by experience, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 3 resumed.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 3 and 4 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. First, looking at Amendment 3, which seeks to exclude health services altogether, I think the key question remains: who wants this legislation? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is not in his place, asked in relation to Amendment 1: who is asking for this power that the Government are legislating to grant them? We have the Health Minister in the Minister’s place. I hope he can inform the Committee which bodies within the National Health Service have been knocking on his door, asking to be given the powers that are set out in this legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, quoted to us from the note that has been sent out by NHS Providers, which represents all the trusts in England, and it could not be clearer that not only is the legislation unwanted but it sees it as actively counterproductive to its efforts to work with the staff that it employs in order to deliver the service both on a day-to-day basis and during industrial action. We seem to be in a situation where the employers are saying that they do not want this, and the employees certainly do not want it, yet the Government are determined to stick their oar in and make a difficult situation worse. This potentially has significant short-term and long-term disadvantages that will be to the detriment of the health service.

I am sure the Government will say that this is about delivering health services to people in the United Kingdom, and we would agree that it is about that. The question is: what framework means that we are most likely to get those health services delivered effectively? It is one in which employers and employees are working hand in hand to deliver health services to people. It is not one in which we create artificial tensions between employers and employees, and it is not one in which we pass legislation and seek to impose measures that will increase those tensions and make things worse.

As well as NHS Providers, I have been contacted by a consultant who works in the health service, who said to me:

“Instead of focusing on minimum service levels on striking days, the Government should be taking action to ensure the NHS is safely staffed 365 days a year.”


We will come to amendments later on where we will talk specifically about that, but that is the prize—a 365-day-a-year service. That depends, crucially, on staff morale, staff recruitment—we all know that we have huge gaps right across the health service—and staff retention, which means making them feel valued. It certainly does not mean press-ganging them into working at times when they have exercised their legitimate right to withhold their labour because of an industrial dispute.

The consultant goes on to say:

“Instead of threatening workers and unions with heavy-handed tactics that put workers’ right to strike at risk, this means ensuring that there is meaningful engagement on pay and a commitment to enshrining and funding safe staffing. This would help stem the tide of doctors leaving the NHS every year for better jobs at home and abroad, in the best interests of the NHS and patient care.”


I asked the Minister this question at Second Reading; I will ask it again: is there anything in this legislation that the Minister can say, hand on heart, will help him and his department recruit more staff to the NHS and stem that flow away from the service?

On the specific consultations that the Government have put out, we now have one on the ambulance service; again, I have been talking to people who work in that service. First, I have to say that the consultation is one of those classics: if you ask people, “Do you want more or less service?”, who votes for less service? When the Government ask, “Do you want category 1 and category 2 or just category 1?”, I think we can reasonably predict the answer. But the consultation does not ask, “Do you want the Government to come to a fair settlement with ambulance workers so that you can have categories 1 and 2 all year round, delivered to a level of performance that would be a significant improvement on today’s level?” I think the Government would freely admit that they are failing on both categories today; again, we have to ask whether anything in this legislation will improve the service delivered by the ambulance service. There is nothing there.

The ambulance service points out that, if you include categories 1 and 2, that covers pretty much the entire service. It is pretty much business as usual that the Government are consulting on. In essence, they are asking, “Should we prevent ambulance workers going on strike?” That is the net effect of saying that the minimum service level is the entire service. Again, I think that there is some confusion there.

The ambulance service also points out that the Government are, in part, driven by the fact that they are failing to meet their targets. Now they are consulting on what should be in categories 1 and 2, so we may end up consulting on a minimum service that will itself have to change as the Government change their definition of what constitutes categories 1 and 2 because of the pressures on the ambulance service; for example, there are suggestions that some people may no longer be categorised as category 2 until a further assessment of their needs has been made. Again, we are consulting on something that may move as the consultation progresses. We have a problem both with the generality of the health service being included and around the specifics on the ambulance service.

I want to raise one further issue, which relates to the speed with which the legislation has been introduced. I am not a civil claims lawyer but I know that their job is to pursue all possible angles in favour of their clients. We also know that the NHS is already paying out more than £2 billion a year in compensation claims, including claims made for failures to deliver on the agreed levels of service for ambulances and emergency care.

This legislation could change that landscape in several ways. First, if the minimum service level has been defined yet there is still a failure, there will potentially be a claim against the Government who set that minimum service level. If I am a claimant lawyer, I am going to go for every angle; one of the angles is to say, “The minimum service level was insufficient so I am going to try to drag the Government into the case”.

If the minimum service level was set but the work notices were insufficient, I would go after the trust and try to bring it into the case, saying that the only reason my claimant suffered was because the hospital trust failed to deliver sufficient work notices. Even the existence of this law could fundamentally change the landscape for those claims. If you fail to exercise that law, which the Government keep saying is a measure of last resort, claims could come in to the effect, “You had a law for minimum service. I suffered at the hands of the NHS because there was no minimum service level in place, but the Government could have done something because the legislation was there”. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, nodding, which is encouraging given her legal experience.

I hope that the Minister can say in response, “We’ve worked all this out, don’t worry. When we drafted the legislation, we figured out the effect of having law on minimum service levels, questions around work notices of minimum service levels and how the responsibility of the Government, the trust and others would factor into the landscape of compensation claims once all this has occurred.” I fear that the Minister may not have all that to hand and, frankly, that it has not been done. This is another example of what happens when you rush legislation. There are all kinds of consequences to this Bill because it was not introduced in a thoughtful, careful manner but to fill a government communications grid: “We have strikes; we want to show that we are doing something for the public; we will bring this in.” The health service element creates more questions than answers. I appreciate that the Labour Front Bench has tabled amendments that would remove that.

Amendment 4, which lists the different professions that might be expected to be included, is also interesting. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned earlier that we need foreseeability. The fact that there is no foreseeability in a phrase such “health services” makes it hard for any of us, and certainly for those professions, to understand whether they are in or out. I suspect that the Government will say that where the Opposition would exclude a list of professions, they would include it. Even that would be better than what we have today. If they do intend to include physiotherapists, pharmacists and other workers in the legislation, they should list them in the Bill.

It is not acceptable to use a phrase such as “health services”, which does not inform those hard-working professionals. There is not one profession on that list that does not have a staff shortage right now. We have this list of professionals, but we do not even have the decency to say to them in the legislation, “By the way, at some point you may be subject to minimum service levels being imposed and work notices being sent to you as an individual professional in that job.” We leave it open. We leave it for them to guess.

Both amendments make sense, in that they test the Government’s rationale for including health services and they have thought through the implications for health services in the longer term and try to get more predictability and certainty. If a particular group of professionals are to be included, let us see them in the Bill rather than just saying, “Well, ambulance workers, yes, they’re clear; but for the rest, maybe, maybe not.” That is not good enough when we are talking about people’s essential rights and things which may affect them personally, as they will be press-ganged into coming to work against their wishes at some unknown future date.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, says “Who asks for this Bill?” He then tries to portray that as a binary thing—either workers and unions, or employers, claiming that neither of those groups wants it. However, he and others who oppose this Bill are missing out on a crucial third group: the users of services. This is the Government acting on behalf of the users of services generally. By taking the power to create minimum service levels, they are giving themselves the power to act for the users of services if the need ever arises. Broad terms are used to allow the detailed minimum service levels to be devised within that. Obviously, when regulations are produced they must be very precise, because they will affect whether individual workers will have to comply with work notices.

I should also say that no employer is ever forced under this legislation to issue a work notice; it remains entirely voluntary. Noble Lords should start to see the Bill in a much broader sense, rather than that of trying to create yet more disharmony between employers and their workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her kind words.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to remove the health sector and health services from being within scope of having minimum service levels implemented. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said earlier, the key sectors outlined in the Bill broadly stem from the 1992 Act, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016, as they have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively. Strike action in some areas of health services can put lives at risk or cause serious harm to patients. As my noble friend Lady Noakes rightly pointed out, it is about protecting the patients; that is why we have brought this provision. It has the potential for far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not involved in the dispute. That is why we are looking to include the health services within the legislation.

I will try to answer some of the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others on why we are including health in the minimum service levels. We need to point only to recent experience in the ambulance negotiations, where there were concerns that many trusts were not sure, right up until the night before, whether derogations would be approved. The thinking behind the need for consultation was that we can have that certainty.

At the same time, the nurses’ and the doctors’ unions said, in their recent strikes, that they would not cover A&E. In those circumstances, noble Lords must accept that there was a real possibility of not being able to provide A&E services, which would obviously threaten the lives of patients. That is why we feel the need to put those protections in the minimum service levels. However, the most important thing in all this is that the Bill is just enabling legislation; our sincere hope is that it is never needed.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

On the recent actions, the Minister talked about how often discussions went to the wire and agreements were reached the night before. Are there any instances he would share with the Committee in which the cover of the voluntary arrangements actually failed, as opposed to going to the wire but getting there in the end?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I believe that there will be a group of amendments specifically on transport later on. That will be the opportunity to answer those questions. I have been drafted in—dare I say it—at the last moment, because it is a very important issue and I wanted personally to talk about the health aspects, which I am attempting to do, so please forgive me if I try not to stray into other areas. There will be the opportunity to discuss transport later on.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked who wants this. It is a backstop power. Trusts will never need to use it if they do not want to. I believe that most trusts, and I hope all, have excellent relations and are able to make sure that these provisions are never used or needed.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

It is helpful having the Minister here—we appreciate it—because he will be responsible for those health trusts. I am cautious about the notion that it is a backstop power. It is something that the Minister repeats often, but is he concerned that there will be pressure either for the legal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have outlined—that there will be judicial processes that force trusts to think that they have to impose a minimum service level whether or not they want to—or just political pressure? The Government have brought this legislation in. If trusts say, “Look, we don’t want to impose this, because we think it is bad for our area”, are Ministers really going to sit back and say, “Fine, we’re not going to bother”?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I answered earlier on the devolved Governments, by definition, we accept that different trusts have the ability to work out what is best for their own area. Clearly, devolved Governments will each have their own opinion on how they want to act. The same principle exists in each place. We are not saying to each trust, “Thou shalt enact it in this way”; we are just giving those backstop powers. The most important thing here, which I think we all agree on, is for there to be the ability in all circumstances to protect life and limb. If doctors, nurses and ambulance crews all go on strike at the same time and say as part of that that they do not want to provide A&E cover, that is a circumstance where we are not able to provide those minimum services. I think that most fair-minded people would conclude that there is a risk to life and limb in that case.

The points made about civil claims—I know that they are very much the concern of the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel—will be addressed in considering later amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, I believe that it is trying to work off the 1992 definitions and work. The beauty of these debates, as I have come to appreciate about the House of Lords and the job that it does, even in the short time that I have been involved, is that they make sure, through this good critical challenge, that we can ensure that the legislation is doing exactly what we want it to do. We need to make sure that we get those definitions correct and, clearly, the beauty of where we are at this stage is that we have that ability. I thank noble Lords for that, and I hope that they can see by my responses that this is something that I want to make sure we get right.

I am glancing through the remaining questions—but I hope that I have answered the substance of the questions.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

I appreciate the Minister taking so many interventions. On the question of whether the Government have done any modelling, when they did their analysis of the legislation, was any modelling done to try to understand the potential impact on legal liability, civil claims and claims against the NHS for compensation? It would be helpful for us to have that information, because it will be a material factor as to whether a trust, as the Bill says “may” issue work orders; it says “may” rather than “shall”. Whether the trust feels that it can exercise that discretion will depend very much on whether it is incurring additional legal risk. If there is material on that, it would be helpful for us to have it as we go through the scrutiny process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in many respects. I began teaching in 1973 and I can count on the fingers of both hands—probably not even using them all—the number of times that I have been on strike. One of the reasons why I was not on strike in the early phases of my career was because we had sectoral collective bargaining: we could make an impact on what was happening with our pay and conditions. I very much regret the loss of collective bargaining in education because it has had a material impact on the way in which teachers are able to pursue issues with their own pay and conditions.

However, let us move on to what the Bill would do. The noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Fox, are of course right: there is a very serious situation with regard to recruitment and retention of teachers. That is one of the reasons why there is such a high rate of parental and carers’ support for the action that teachers are taking. To take just one example, one in eight maths lessons in schools in England is taught by someone who has no qualification in mathematics. What chance do we have of providing coherent maths teaching to the age of 18 or 19, as the Prime Minister would like, if we cannot provide it for all the children who have it at the moment?

I cannot tell you how many emails, messages and phone calls I had after people read the WhatsApp messages. The notion that a Secretary of State would say that all teachers were work-shy and did not like or want to go to work beggars belief, to be honest. For anyone who has never been a teacher, I can tell you that teaching is not for everybody, and there are people who voluntarily leave teaching because going into a classroom every day and not being successful is devastating. That is why lots of people leave the profession—because they cannot manage the stress of not just the teaching but all the accountability measures. We really need to hang on to the teachers we have, who are still going to school every day and, for the most part, enjoying their jobs, notwithstanding the terrible levels of pressure that they face. We really need to make sure that we have a proper retention system.

It seems to me that threatening those teachers with the possibility that they will be sacked if they have legitimately voted for and taken industrial action, very much as a last resort—as I am sure everybody in this Chamber knows and as has been said by Kevin Courtney and Mary Bousted, the joint general secretaries of the NEU—will not only risk the possibility of more people leaving teaching, but I cannot imagine that anyone is going to want to come into teaching when there are so many difficulties and challenges that we have at the moment.

On the other issue about cogs and wheels, I am not in favour of the fragmentation that we have seen in our education service, but fragmentation we have. The idea that we can have a minimum service level across 26,000 or 28,000 schools, not accounting for alternative provision and so on, simply is not workable. Much more importantly for me, it is not desirable. It conveys exactly the wrong impression to teachers, and we need to be talking up teaching—I am very prepared to do it—because even on a slightly bad day it is a wonderful job when you are actually in there with the children. It is not so great when you are dealing with Ofsted, and when you look at your pay at the end of the month, but it is fantastic when you are actually dealing with children and young people.

This is absolutely the wrong place to be going. I oppose this Bill in its totality, but I certainly oppose what is being said about education in this.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I just wanted to rise briefly to follow up on a couple of points we made in the previous group that I think are applicable here. In some ways, we are dealing with apples and pears; the Health Minister talked about the legislation as being essential because of life and death situations, and I do not think that any of us, however much we value education, would argue that we are in the same game here. But on another level it is apples and apples, because the problem with both the framings in the Bill is that they just say “health services” or “education services” in this incredibly vague way. I think that some of the same criticisms about foreseeability and predictability apply here, as they did with the previous group.

Specifically in the context of education, I am keen to hear from the Education Minister a similar assurance to that we were given by the Health Minister that these are permissive powers: that affected entities may give work orders, but that they will never be forced by the Government to do so. Even if a minimum service level is established in education, I hope we are going to hear that no school, college or university would be made to give work orders; they are simply empowered to do so. I hope that will be the Government’s position; that would be consistent with the previous group. Even if they agree that this is the case, I still have concerns about the effect in practice, as I did with the previous group.

I have children who are, at the moment, in a school affected by strikes. The school is managing incredibly well; it is keeping the children in exam years in school and finding ways to safeguard the others. The principal writes to us and explains why he supports his striking staff and why they deserve a better deal. That principal is never going to implement these work orders if the Government put them in place, except in two circumstances. I think we need to explore that in the context of all the powers in this Bill.

The first circumstance is that the Government in some way try to make the principal give work orders that he does not want to give to his staff. They can do that through funding mechanisms—“You don’t have to give the work orders but, if you don’t, we’ll kick your windows in”. That is not really a free choice, yet we have to worry that this is the intention of the Government. Certainly if this Government stay in power, that is the way they would handle future disputes: “Now we’ve done the minimum service levels, there is no excuse for any school not to implement it and issue work orders, whether they like it or not”.

The second mechanism was again raised on the health trust situation, and I think it is also relevant here. It is that an educational institution feels legally vulnerable if it does not implement the minimum service levels. It could be the case for schools, but it is particularly a concern for universities. We already see universities being sued by students for alleged failures to deliver the service that they signed up for. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of those cases, but again you can imagine a situation in which a university says, “Our industrial relations are good. Yes, there is a strike. Yes, we can manage it. Yes, there is a government regulation that talks about minimum service levels, but we don’t want to give work orders to our staff because we think that will worsen the situation, not improve it”, and then find itself subject to legal action. With that threat hanging over them, the leadership of our education institutions ends up doing things it does not want to do and has not chosen to do.

The word “may” sits in the Bill and is at the heart of everything. I think this Minister will say, as the previous Minister said, “This is all optional—a backstop power—and we are not going to force anyone”. That only works if the Government can give us assurances that they are not going to run a protection racket—“Issue the work orders or we kick the window in”, name and shame, or whatever mechanism they want to use—and that they have taken the advice that says that even if they have implemented the regulations, our institutions are not required to implement them and cannot be sued through civil claims simply for failing to implement a minimum service level in a regulation under this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, when this subject first came up in the Bill—the idea of talking about minimum service levels around services for 365 days a year—I initially thought that there was a cheeky and a serious aspect to it. The cheeky aspect is that it is an opportunity to make a political response to the Government’s political legislation, and to talk about service levels all year round and the failings we have seen since this party has been in power as our public services have worsened.

The serious aspect, which in a sense is more interesting and which has come out in the debate today, is around the definition of “minimum”. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, keeps reminding us to think about what the public see and perceive. There are two quite different ways in which to interpret “minimum”. One version is “comfortable”, when services are at a reasonable and sustainable level and are effective. In the context of healthcare, that would mean that I can see a GP when I need to, or get hold of an NHS dentist. If I am a woman who needs hormone replacement therapy, or if I have a child who needs antibiotics, I can get the drugs. When I call an ambulance, one comes in a reasonable period of time—and when I go to A&E, I can get through it and into a bed. When I need to be discharged, there is a care home for me to go to. Of all those things, I think most members of the public would say that that is a minimum. It is not the gold-standard service—it is the baseline that they expect.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, various circumstances may lead to legislation being rushed through Parliament. We might have to respond to international developments beyond our control: a conflict breaking out, or an urgent need to approve a treaty. There may have been an unexpected incident where it is clear that our current law is inadequate and there is cross-party agreement to work urgently to fill a gap. Alternatively, we may have a Government who find themselves in trouble and cook up some kind of legislative proposal so they can fill their media grid by appearing to be doing something.

There are no prizes for guessing which of those scenarios we on these Benches believe we find ourselves in today. There is no outside pressure or unexpected gap in the law, but we do have a Government who are floundering and seeking to distract attention rather than dealing with the real problems facing our country. I will focus on the crisis in health and social care in my remarks, while other noble friends will speak to transport and broader concerns about industrial relations later.

First, I want to flush out one area which illustrates the hollow political intent behind this legislation. That is the Government’s attempt to sell it as a copy of what happens in other European countries. To hear this Government, of all people, ask for support for regulation on the basis of aligning with EU countries tells us either that they completely lack a sense of irony or that they actually want us to laugh at them. You can imagine someone in No. 10 getting excited about this angle as one which will confound those pesky Europhile Opposition politicians: “How can they oppose this if we point out that it is just like the EU countries that they love?” Gosh, you have really got us there; what can we say? Oh yes, we can say that this is nonsense. There might be an argument for saying that this is alignment if the Government were planning to import French, German or Spanish labour law wholesale, with works councils, collective bargaining and the whole kit and caboodle. Can the Minister confirm today what other elements of EU labour law the Government plan to adopt in the near future? But, of course, that is not what they are proposing, and their argument falls apart as soon as you recognise that each country has a unique way of managing relations between workers and employers that depends on a complex web of relationships and legal powers.

Let us turn to one of the areas that the Government say is a primary driver for the Bill: health and social care. There is as near to consensus as you ever get in politics that the biggest challenge facing our health and care sectors is a lack of staff to provide the services that we need. We discuss these staff shortages in this House continually, and the Government themselves agree that we cannot improve these essential services without solving them.

These shortages pile extra stress on to those who are having to cover gaps, making the idea of going into these essential roles even less attractive. The overriding priority for any Government faced with this situation should be to work at making these professions more attractive, and that does mean looking at pay, but also at the morale of the profession. What we are seeing from this Government is the opposite of that: they set out to give the impression that they are immovable on pay, that they have few ideas on staffing levels, and as icing on that hard cake they come up with this Bill as a warning to anyone who dares to challenge them.

There is nothing in this Bill that will lead to more health and social care staff being hired, but it rather represents another signal from this Government about how they intend to treat those who are employed in these essential services. Staff in the NHS taking industrial action feel caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are dedicated professionals who would rather be at work caring for people than on the picket line, but they are genuinely concerned that their living standards will keep eroding if they do not take a stand to defend them.

There is an opening for a positive discussion between the Government and those professionals about what a fair settlement would look like, and about how they can work together to ensure that there are adequate staffing levels all year round to help patients and the staff themselves. Instead, under this Bill, the Government will be forcing conversations about staffing levels to happen under threat of sanctions. That is hardly conducive to good dialogue.

The Government have one more trick in their media playbook: the consultations they are running on minimum service levels that are engineered to be able to show public support. There is no option in the consultation to see whether people would rather the Government settled the dispute so that industrial action itself went away—something I suspect would have overwhelming public support in the case of NHS staff—and there is no attempt to explain the trade-offs and complexities involved in a mandated versus a mutually agreed approach.

The Government’s case is not that there has been a failure to provide baseline cover during recent strikes but that they want more consistency and prior notice. But if the price of that consistency is a worsening climate of hostility between employers and staff, we have to ask whether this is worth it. In sectors where there is a queue of people wanting to take on jobs, playing hardball like this might be defensible, but where those queues are empty and our overriding public goal has to be to fill them, this is a very high-risk strategy. As always, we do not wish for the Government to fail, but we would be remiss in our duty if we did not raise a flag where we think this is likely to be the case. The Government have had their announcement and shown that they are not taking the strikes lying down, but the price of following this approach to the bitter end is that it risks undermining their overwhelming priority, which is to improve public service staff recruitment and retention.

It is not too late for the Government to think again about where their time and energy should be best directed if we are to see meaningful, systemic improvements to health and social care rather than a mere manoeuvre past a bump in the road. The risk otherwise is that in pushing hard to establish mandated minimum service levels during industrial action, this very effort will contribute to being unable to maintain what are all too often inadequate levels of service in these vital sectors all year round.

I always find the impact assessments that come with legislation illuminating, and we received the one for this Bill today, which did not disappoint. It shows us another possible way forward. The first option is voluntary minimum service level agreements, with no government incentives, in key public services. The impact assessment suggests that similar benefits could be derived from voluntary agreements, with the main downside being that employers would need to offer incentives in return, perhaps in terms of pay and working conditions.

I close with a question to the Minister and ask him to explain whether this option to make a good-faith effort to negotiate more voluntary arrangements for strike cover was ever seriously explored. This would be a way both to guarantee services and to motivate staff to join and stay in these public services. I suggest to the Minister that in the current climate, we might get further by offering more carrots rather than waving ever-bigger sticks.